Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Since when does being relied on more for offense excuse Danny's poor defense during the dark ages? PG doesn't slack off defensively just because he has a bigger role in the offense.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      Since when does being relied on more for offense excuse Danny's poor defense during the dark ages? PG doesn't slack off defensively just because he has a bigger role in the offense.
      We have so many more options that isn't a fair comparison. Paul George lets the offense come to him. He isn't THE offense. Granger was running through screens all night, and a majority of the plays were designed specifically for him. George can, and does, take a couple plays off throughout the night. We have 5 guys who are capable of the offense running through. Granger had what.. two or three outside himself that you could reasonably say were capable, but still not at the level that George has?

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by Magic P View Post
        Since when does being relied on more for offense excuse Danny's poor defense during the dark ages? PG doesn't slack off defensively just because he has a bigger role in the offense.
        PG is not coached by JOB either.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
          We have so many more options that isn't a fair comparison. Paul George lets the offense come to him. He isn't THE offense. Granger was running through screens all night, and a majority of the plays were designed specifically for him. George can, and does, take a couple plays off throughout the night. We have 5 guys who are capable of the offense running through. Granger had what.. two or three outside himself that you could reasonably say were capable, but still not at the level that George has?
          If that is true when PG has a bad game you'd think he was the sole reason we lost. With this team being so deep you'd think PG wouldn't get criticized after every bad game. Danny who was relied on for offense still got off to bad starts, why? Birds comments the other day tells us why. So Danny brought no defense and got off to bad starts offensively but the new kid in town (PG) gets crucified on a deep team if he has a bad game. This is why there is a Danny vs PG dynamic on this board, Danny gets excuses for poor play but PG doesn't.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
            PG is not coached by JOB either.
            He did for half a season and he still played defense.

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              Originally posted by GrangerRanger View Post
              We have so many more options that isn't a fair comparison. Paul George lets the offense come to him. He isn't THE offense. Granger was running through screens all night, and a majority of the plays were designed specifically for him. George can, and does, take a couple plays off throughout the night. We have 5 guys who are capable of the offense running through. Granger had what.. two or three outside himself that you could reasonably say were capable, but still not at the level that George has?
              Top 5 on offense on the JOB years, the Pacers had players capable of scoring the myth that he had to jackup shots because he didn't have enough help is just that a myth.

              And nope George doesn't take plays off because he is always guarding the best player on the other team.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                I love Paul George. But if you don't think he takes plays off you are crazy. Every player I'm the NBA does. Hell there are times Roy doesn't even get down on the offensive end of the court.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  PG is not coached by JOB either.
                  He was for a half season and got to spend of lot of that time on the bench or being told he was doing things wrong by JOB.

                  Danny was a strong defender his first couple of years and then was forced to keep spending seasons with his coach handing huge playing time to Murphy, Dunleavy, even Rasho till he started dying. Posey got way more PT than he deserved. And that entire time JOB played LIP SERVICE to "guys need to play D to earn PT" as an excuse for not developing Roy or Paul (2 future all-stars no less) while letting Troy the Doorman play 36 a night.

                  I know it's different posters at times, but it's really pathetic to see things like "Dunleavy played good team defense" and then see Granger described as a poor defender. I'm really sick of "team defense" as an excuse for the horrible defenders of the past, period. Scola and West are guys that aren't great defenders but play great team defense. Its what makes West the 3rd best defender on the team, rather than West looking like Murphy on defense.

                  And I say this because Granger never needed that excuse, the "but he plays good team defense", because you could see him body guys up in the post and get a fair share of wing shot blocks.


                  Granger has ALWAYS been a far better POST DEFENDER than Paul George. This is why he's a great SF vs Paul being a great SG. Guys like Melo or Lebron have a tougher time going at Danny because of his borderline PF defensive game.


                  It's really sad to see that people either forgot or just jumped on the wagon and don't have any recollection of how Granger and James got into it while James was still in Cleveland. This includes when James and Granger exchanged "game winning" FTAs after drawing fouls on each other.





                  Finally, has anyone ever thought that just maybe Paul George and Danny Granger would both equally benefit from playing on a stable, well-coached team with an AS caliber Hibbert, a fully recovered West, a matured Lance, and backup PG and PF drastically improved?

                  Danny was the star player on a playoff team that nearly STARTED AJ Price, Tyler Hans, a very non-AS Roy and a rookie. That was just 3 seasons ago. The year after Danny put up numbers just as good as Paul when they got to 6 games vs Miami. And lets be honest about last season, the main difference was that they saw Miami in the ECF instead of round 2.




                  Freaking Reggie Miller putting up 57...he sucked, it was just that he was on a bad team. smfh in embarrassment

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                    If that is true when PG has a bad game you'd think he was the sole reason we lost. With this team being so deep you'd think PG wouldn't get criticized after every bad game. Danny who was relied on for offense still got off to bad starts, why? Birds comments the other day tells us why. So Danny brought no defense and got off to bad starts offensively but the new kid in town (PG) gets crucified on a deep team if he has a bad game. This is why there is a Danny vs PG dynamic on this board, Danny gets excuses for poor play but PG doesn't.
                    Lol....Crucified? Really? Really???? George Hill certainly has been drawing quite a bit of criticism lately and seems to be the new whipping boy. About the only criticism Paul George receives is with his constant complaining to the refs and diva-like actions at times-and justifiably so...other than that, he receives little to no criticism even though hes the new face of the franchise with a max contract and as such its natural to expect a fair amount of criticism when he doesnt play well.

                    Now what all that has to do with Danny is beyond me...Its like some of you dont understand that probably the biggest key to winning a championship is having them both performing at a high level and having the two of them healthy along with the other top 9 players.

                    You do realize they play for the same team, correct?? You know, YOURS and OUR Indiana Pacers????? Some of you talk about Danny as if he played for the Heat or something.....crazy nonsense.
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                      He did for half a season and he still played defense.
                      Not according to JOB. Sitting 5 feet from JOB I watched Paul come in off the bench vs ORL and after 2 trips JOB called him over and *****ed him out like he'd just blown everything.

                      Also being an eager rookie who hasn't already spent 3 years on "chuck it with no consequences for not defending" is not the same as being a guy emulating Artest his rookie year only to see those dreams and that coaching style flushed down the toilet....over and over.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        Top 5 on offense on the JOB years, the Pacers had players capable of scoring the myth that he had to jackup shots because he didn't have enough help is just that a myth.

                        And nope George doesn't take plays off because he is always guarding the best player on the other team.
                        Now its official...you just proved it...you dont watch the games...

                        Theres at least a couple plays a game he takes off because hes too busy whining to the referee that he was fouled...and he definitely misses some rotations that lead to a couple easy baskets each game....that makes him human...hes still an all-world defender...
                        The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                          And Joe Johnson. And Kawhi. And Dudley. And Melo. And Parsons.

                          I am not expecting perfection. But we need low post defense against periemeter players besides George. Lance is good, but even Joe Johnson destroyed him on the block. I was surprised that when we put Lance on Lebron they didn't go to the post with Lebron. In fact that alone is why Spoelstra is a great coach. The Heat pressured our defense most when they put Lebron in the post.
                          Exactly. It's like people have completely forgotten every game this team played just 2 years ago. Of course they also think Granger is a chucker even though he's shown far more success drawing FTAs per game than Paul has up till now.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            So you are tired of people using "team defense" as an excuse but then Danny is a good "team defender"? what I'm missing here?
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Good numbers on bad team - THIS IS THE DUMBEST MYTH, THE MOST CONTRADICTED MYTH, IN ALL OF SPORTS

                              How does Iverson get credit for "carry a team on his own" but Granger get bashed for putting up more efficient scoring numbers on a team that did NOT feature a DPOY at center (Mutumbo).


                              How is it that Shaq helped make his shooters look better cause he got them open looks, but Granger hit all his threes because he DIDN'T HAVE SHAQ? When you make the statement that guys put up good per minute/per FGA numbers on bad teams specifically because their teammates are so bad it just sounds dumb and instantly contradicts the idea that a guy can't be blamed cause his teammates are so bad.

                              Having better teammates must make your numbers look better...unless you are someone that only looks at pure volume (ie PPG or maybe RPG). You need guys to make shots to get assists, you need guys to help get open looks to carry a good FG%.


                              Or would someone like to make the case that if ANY PLAYER went 1 on 5, literally being the only player on the court for his team, that he'd get better numbers? Somehow being the only guy out there would means your FG% would go up and you'd be getting all the rebounds by outplaying all 5 opponents at once?

                              THINK ABOUT THE LOGIC OF BEING "HELPED" BY HAVING BAD TEAMMATES! Then put that BS statement 6 feet under forever.....this message brought to you by Gerald Green on the WINNING Phoenix Suns.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Fifty five pages in, and it's become a personal memory retention contest.
                                You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X